Spokane7
37°
January 15, 2010 in City
High court to decide on petition signatures
OLYMPIA — The U.S. Supreme Court granted a request to review the dispute on whether the names of people who sign a petition to put a law before voters are public, and subject to release.
The high court today granted certiorari to the case Doe v Reed, and set it for a hearing as early as April. An exact date hasn’t been set.
The case involves a fight over the names and addresses of people who signed petitions to put Referendum 71 on last year’s November ballot. The referendum, which sought to overturn expanded rights for same sex and elderly heterosexual coupes, was sponsored by people opposed to gay marriage.
Supporters of gay rights filed a public records request for the names of everyone who signed the petition and referendum backers objected, saying they feared the signers would be harassed.
Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed and Attorney General Rob McKenna have said the names of people who sign initiative or referendum petitions are public under the state’s Public Records Act. Federal and state judges have disagreed. Most recently, a divided panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled they are public records, but the release of the names has been put on hold pending the appeal to the nation’s highest court.
Meanwhile, bills being introduced in the current session of the Washington Legislature seek to declare the names definitely are public or are exempt from released under the public records act.
Recent stories by Jim Camden
Spin Cycle: Perhaps budget is more pressing, but marriage debate was good February 12, 2012 1- That’s NEWS to you February 12, 2012
- Legislators approve easing glasses rules February 10, 2012
- Lawmakers balk on marijuana initiative February 10, 2012 1
- Gay marriage wins 55-43 vote, now headed to Gregoire February 9, 2012 128
Recent stories in City
- Beyonce, Jay-Z share bundle of joy February 12, 2012
- Child inventors gather to display problem-solving skills, creativity February 12, 2012
- Jim Kershner’s This day in history February 12, 2012
- Huckeleberries: Those beer goggles are hiding an ugly truth February 12, 2012
- Spin Cycle: Perhaps budget is more pressing, but marriage debate was good February 12, 2012 1
WSU Text-to-Win Contest 
Enter to win tickets to see Adam Carolla at the Knitting Factory 
EWU Text-to-Win Contest 
yikes on January 15 at 2:00 p.m.
I am pro-gay marriage but I don’t think the names should be released. Kind of like the equivalant of privacy in voting. The law is the law though. There may be an angle I’m not looking at here…???
IHike4Fun on January 15 at 2:28 p.m.
What would the motive of this group for wanting the names releasing other than to intimidate? I guess such intimidate would fall under hate crime laws.
chelsita on January 15 at 2:39 p.m.
I don’t think anyone wants to use this info to intimidate those who sign, but to hold the signers accountable. If you give them the protection of closed doors, it allows them to get their bigotted agenda on ballots.
This case will set a precedent in the state for future ballot initiatives. I think citizens have a right to know which groups of people are working to get their initiatives put to vote. But once it’s actually to the public vote, every voter can vote how they wish in private.
Megan_B on January 15 at 4:00 p.m.
What chelsita says above makes sense, except one also has to keep in mind persons who may own or run a business, be high members of a church, school, etc., and while signing for their own personal stance, must still risk their reputation based on their association with whatever organization or company they are part of. Just something to think about…
reservedparking on January 15 at 5:15 p.m.
Good reason to never sign petitions.
oneandtwo on January 15 at 5:22 p.m.
yikes is mis-informed. Voter registration is public information. Its who/what you vote for that is not.
The same for political donations. Its all public information.
Government and any law making including petitions to put laws on the ballot should be in the open. As mentioned above, no one is forcing you to sign a petition. Besides if it wasn’t public information, how would anyone know if those signatures were real or not?
edmitch on January 15 at 5:53 p.m.
While I did not sign the petition that is the subject of the legal case, I have, in the past, signed some petitions that I did not agree with. Why? Because I believed that voters deserved an opportunity to express their view at the ballot box on the subject at hand.
It would be a mistake to make assumptions about each signature on petitions.
D Statler on January 15 at 8:47 p.m.
I kinda think these people want my info for later use.Thus being the case it should not be given to them.How I voted on a particular issue today may not have anything to do with what these people want my personal info for.I think this might and could lead to identity theft or other criminal activity.Who knows,the government could use this info to profile americans. Just sounds like a BAD idea! Keep our info safe please !!